USC Valedictorian Gets the Hook

For a short time, Chino Hills native and medical engineering student at USC Asna Tabassum was going to give the valedictory speech at this year’s commencement in May.

But shortly after the announcement was made, University of Southern California  administrators – citing “security issues”  – withdrew the offer and now Tabassum is famous.

Is she a martyr to the ever-diminishing free speech allowed on college campuses or was the school worried that she would hijack the graduation ceremonies with some sort of out-of-context anti-Israel rant?

USC says no, it wasn’t anything like that – it was about safety only:

“The university’s leadership made this decision in close consultation with our Department of Public Safety and threat team. As Provost Andrew Guzman noted in his statement, the decision had nothing to do with the background or viewpoint of the valedictorian, but was instead based on a careful and holistic review of the situation from a safety and security standpoint. 

 While the decision was difficult, it was necessary to maintain and prioritize the security of the USC community during the coming weeks, and to allow those attending commencement to focus on the celebration our graduates deserve. Nothing can take precedence over the safety of our community.”

But to claim that Tabassum’s pro-Palestinian views –  including her social media linking of a statement that called for the abolishment of Israel – did not play a role in the decision is disingenuous at best.  A pair of school Jewish groups immediately called on the administration to rescind the offer due to Tabassum’s negative views on Israel.

While the “security” specifics have yet to be disclosed by school administrators, Tabassum has said that the disinvitation exposed her to a significant amount of “hate” and the school has “stifled” her views.

On CNN, Tabassum was asked about the social media link she posted and proceeded to hem and haw before not really answering the question as to whether or not she truly believes in the abolishment of Israel:

Tabassum – who appears to have some rather strict media training – said she believes in “human rights for all” and is disappointed that that stance for human rights is “controversial.”

But that aggressively misses the point of the question, and Tabassum’s calling Israel “an apartheid state,” an oft repeated and completely inaccurate description, and saying that Israel “subjugates the Palestinian people” would seem to indicate she would at least not stand in the way of the elimination of Israel.

Do valedictorians have the right to say anything during their speech? Since it is a university function, probably technically not experts say.

However, as most valedictory speeches are tedious recitations of platitudes and obviates – “what a long strange trip this has been…we bonded for life…all of futures are bright…we have a chance to shape a better future…” etc., the issue does not come up that often.

It should be noted that Tabassum had not written her speech – still hasn’t, it seems – when USC peremptorily pulled the plug.

Whether or not her free speech rights have been technically violated is not exactly clear.

But what is clear – considering the general censorious attitudes and actions of the progressive left on campuses and in government hallways around the country – is that if Tabassum were a fervent supporter of Israel and had her speech invitation pulled there she would not be famous, there would not be a wailing and gnashing of teeth from the disingenuous left.

She must be able to speak because we agree with what we hope she will say. You people on the right?  We’re glad you’re being censored at every opportunity.  

A pair of examples from the egregious Los Angeles Times illustrate this point quite succinctly.

Last fall, a Jewish professor named John Strauss got into a verbal tussle with a group of pro-Palestinian supporters during a demonstration on campus. Strauss told the students that “Hamas are murderers. That’s all they are. Every one should be killed, and I hope they all are killed.”

While the Times story poo-poos Strauss claim that the video of the even that went very viral was doctored, it did admit that in many cases it had been edited to leave out the “Hamas” reference.  Note to Times – selectively editing is a form of doctoring so much of the world just saw the “every one should be killed” bit.

Strauss was barred from campus.  Dueling petitions went forth, one calling Strauss a racist who should be fired, the other saying he was expressing his opinion and should be allowed on campus.

The story on Strauss is 66 paragraphs long  and only a few mention the issue of free speech.

Contrast that to the Times story on Tabassum – 61 paragraphs, more than half about the issue of censorship.

From the Times piece: 

“USC communications professor Christina Dunbar-Hester, chapter president of the USC American Assn. of University Professors, said in a statement that it was disingenuous to frame Tabassum’s speech as a security issue without specifying a threat” and that USC “capitulated to a ‘heckler’s veto’ before the fact.”

In regard to Tabassum, the Times asks if USC “went too far?” With Strauss, there was no such concern.

This selectivity of outrage is typical of the totalitarian woke – USC reacted somewhat similarly (if not proportionately) in each case – both Strauss and Tabassum were dinged/disciplined in a way.

But only Tabassum is depicted as a hero whose rights are being crushed, another example of fair weather free speech fans.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression –FIRE – may be more well-known for going after woke campus speech codes and such, but it is not a fair weather free speech group.

Zach Greenberg, a first amendment attorney for the group, said FIRE supports Tabassum’s right to speak.

Valedictory speeches around the world have, on occasion, been very controversial and valedictorians are “usually given a free hand” when crafting their talks, Greenberg said.

Greenberg also isn’t buying USC’s security claims, noting that if they truly existed the school should warn soon-to-be-graduates and their families about the risk.  The school has not done so.

“It’s difficult to takes the university’s words at face value” Greenberg said.

Letting the speech go forward, added Greenberg, is not just about Tabassum’s freedom to express herself, but it is also important for the entire school.

“Every time a student is censored, it leads to more student self-censorship to not talk about anything controversial,”  Greenberg said.

If Tabassum delivered a stirring pro-Palestine speech it would have been just as annoying to most of the graduates as when an actor makes a speech condemning the evil du jour at an awards show: Tedious, clunky, irritating, and completely out of place.

But that doesn’t mean she shouldn’t be allowed to give it.  In theory, colleges are where people are supposed to be exposed to different thoughts, different ideas.

Sadly in practice enow it is typically the students  who demand to be coddled, demand to not hear anything that disagrees with their pre-conceived world view, anything that could make them uncomfortable.

Sorry to break it to you, but that’s life kid – listen and you might learn something.